The "Ex-gay" movement. - Page 2

It could be, I'm not aware of it though. Could you be more specific?
If it's laughable or ludicrous then what do you do with the data?

...do you have children?

Seriously, though, I've seen my children (and other's) invent whole new ways of misbehaving. It's definitely a personality thing. Every person has a will, and that will wants what it wants, and usually tries the most direct route avialable to get it, usually some form of "GIMMMEEE THAT!!". Now some kids are more disposed to this, and other's less, much less sometimes, but they all 'want' and they have to have their wills broken before they will obey a moral 'do unto others' code with any repetition.

Important note: You want to break the will not the spirit.

I thought I explained myself. The data presented is, to me, not good enough to explain anything. To conduct this study properly you'd have to have a qualified number of identical twins, separated at birth and placed in different cultures. Which is of course imposible.

The data could just as well indicate that identical twins identify more with each other than normal twins. I think that sounds plausible, don't you?

It smells of early 19th century racial studies, with a modern gene twist. It's the case of finding what you are looking for.

here's some other data: 99,9% of the chinese approve of the death panalty. Culture all the way.

Sure, to some degree. Put it is usually pretty easy to tell which kids that is by just looking at the parents behavior. What kids want, apart from the their primal needs is also a taught thing, by parents and environment.

Yes, but there's an initial stage, I'd say within the first 18-24 months, that the really binary, "don't bite the cat"/"don't play in the trash"/sleep squedule gets established. If you don't catch the child before then, you aren't likely to catch them.

After that, is where what you're saying comes in, and yes, right down to mannerisms, dialects, accents, etc, etc, the parents are key in establishing a great many things about the child.

Sure, some kids are tougher by nature than others. Some of that is probably inherited and some might be influenced by the conditions of how the child grew in it's mothers womb.

And we also start learning from the moment of our birth. Studies made of facial expressions on adults caring for pink clothed babies compared to blue clothed babies show very interesting things. Everything is a factor.

The key for me in nurture vs nature is looking at how different my kids are. The environment is roughly the same, but my three daughters (all with different biological parents) are as different as possible personality wise.

Oldest daughter - moody, artistic, musical, easily distracted, gentle with occasional tantrum outbursts

Middle daughter - focused, artistic, musical, happy, fragile, incredibly frugal (won't even spend her gold pieces in computer games)

Youngest daugter - bombastic, extremely physical, likes to play fight, loud, likes to climb.

Now, the only common thread is my two oldest daughters are good artists and musicians, but so is their biological mother (my wife).

Everybody I know with multiple kids, even those that all have the same parents and same environment, has kids with very different personalities. This makes me think that genetics plays a big role in personality and aptitutes.

You don't disagree with this finding, you disagree with the field of behavioral genetics. And not just behavioral genetics, because this is how they do studies of the heritability of diseases too. Do you not believe that schizophrenia, diabetes (especially type 2) and on and on, are partially genetic? I'm not sure how you could believe they're inherited if you reject the methodology of the field of genetics.


There are a number of good criticisms of twin studies, and some of them are valid. But none of them are able to change the basic picture. There's just too much research with too many different methodologies all converging on the same results.


I think it's exactly the opposite - people don't want to believe that we are influenced at all by our genes, so they reject huge swaths of data rather than changing their minds. Check out the book by Pinker the e#### recommended. It goes into not only the data but also the history of how people don't want to believe the data, and how the scientists have resisted and resisted over the years. It's only in the past decade or so that there's been a grudging acknowledgment of the research findings.

The world would be a lot more fair if the sociologists and Europeans were right and only our experiences and environment and conscious choices determined who we are. But unfortunately, that just doesn't appear to be the case.

Yup, I'm with you. Check out a book called "The Nurture Assumption" - the research is with you too, though most psychologists and sociologists aren't. Yet.

Sure, we agreee that kids are different by nature. BUT;
On the other hand, it's easy to argue that that your skills at upbringing and and your social poistion has changed during this time. You don't really repeat the same mistakes on your third child that you made with the first, right? You've learned something in the process. Do you live in the same house? Do you have the same income? Is the world around you the same? And the most important factor. The siblings influence each others. People who study upbringing talk a lot about how you face different challenges with siblings.

Arab culuture, for instance, excpect the first child to be the responsible, the second to be the tempramental and rebelious and the third to be the talented and artistic. in very general terms.

Some talent is likely inherited, but have your two oldest daughter had no contact with their mother? (hope thats not to personal). If not, then it is also likely that they've learned from her.

I don't. Sicknesses are easier to identify then social behavior. I'm claiming that a method used to identify a diseases cannot be used to identify political preferences. those are two very different ballgames altogether.


Like I said, I have no problem with accepting that the brains of identical twins operated more similiar than others. But the leap to identifying political preferences are just to far stretched.


I could of course read the book, but I honestly doubt I will. I don't have the time. But maybe you could post something with a little more substance than that first study-reference, 'cause I didn't find it close to convincing at all.


Oh, but now we can change the genes, so thats not a problem anymore...

[homer] ... drool... violence gene... drool... how convenient... [/homer]

EDIT: I just don't agree. there are too many factors and variables to be able to verify these results. The studies I see on this all strike me as... in loss for a better word... simplistic.

Nothing against those people, but I don't understand them.

Here's a book review of another book I mentioned above. There's also a link to the first chapter of the book itself. The author of the book is a real critic of the socialization approach to child psychology, so, from your comments in this thread, I think you'll disagree with most of her stuff. But the review itself is fair.

Here's a quickie review of behavioral genetics.

I'm fully willing to accept the notion that your genes define the perimeters of who you are. Like other physical factors do.

I'm left-handed, which means I normally have a better perception of space than right-handed people. We know from statistics that a higher percentage of left-handed people end up doing architectural work than normal. But most architects are are still right-handed.

I know I'm genetically disposed to acquiring dementia at young age, as I have it in my family. I know that will affect my personality if I should be unlucky enough to get it, but then again, that would be a disease, right. You can get it without being genetically disposed to.

Where people draw the line between green and blue, or if they don't see red is ofcourse a physical factor that affects peoples daily life. But if my genes in any way influence me in my daily choices, I still hold that my personal experiences count a million times more.

From the book-review, I read that her point seems to be that peer pressure affects our personality more than parenting. Which is totally acceptable to me and has nothing to do with genes.
I'm also fully willing to accept that genes are a factor, but when people like the Jerome Keagan says "half is genes", I have to laugh, because to measure such a thing would be an enormous feat. There is simply no way of saying where to switching-point between parental influence and genetic predisposition is. Like I said personality is not measurable like a disease.

People with ADHD will tell you that they ended up finding their own way of handeling their disorder by relating it thing in their environment, they end up just as diverse as other people. You can find behavioral patterns that are simmilar, sure.

I have my kid part time. She is of course the same, but also a very different person each time she has spent a week with me, then what she was when she came from her mother. She uses different words, choses different clothes and so on. I know that is not statistical material, but from personal experience I'm pretty convinced that I have a major impact on how her personality is developing.

And as a final note, isn't it just typical, from the way I argue, that I have a father in sociology? I havn't been to university a day in my life (I'm educated in arts), but still here I am, arguing like I've been taught.

And, back on topic, I'm mainly behind Anders' assertions in this thread.

But I don't rule out that there is also a genetic factor. I think there would probably have to be in order for reproduction to work. But as a complex society, I think we are long beyond where genetics decide alone, and culture is far more important.

I don't mean this in any way offfensive, but I simply know to many gay people with f**ked up childhoods to rule out the cultural factor. Not that you in any way have to be alienated in any way to be gay, but I believe it might be a triggering factor for some. Genetics might also be involved. A combination maybe.
And, from what I hear, homosexual realations do develope more often where large numbers of men are isolated together. Like in submarines. But that might be a myth.

One more point, I believe that there are much different reasons that men and women live the gay life --- I think Wilde said that men go to marriage for sex and women, security and both end up dissapointed -- anyway, I think gay men probably are in their relationships for much different reasons than women.

I used to work/hang out with a Lesbian couple, and their story was that both had been married before and that their respective husbands had crapped all over them, and they 'gave up' on men and then found each other, and then one thing led to another.

My point is that these women where both in their late thirties and early forties and had been 'staight' their whole lives, presumably, but in their search for a stable realtionship hadn't stopped at the gender barrier, and not that they were uncontrolably drawn to the same sex. They were in fact 'turned on' by the opposite sex, they were basically tired of the B.S.

just an observation...

I've seen it. Funny.. but that is about as far as it goes.

What a horrible horrible thread. Just horrible.

Leave gay people alone. How about this one....

Can all the Judeo-Brainwashed-NeoRepublican-WWJD-Suburban-SUVDriving-WhiteMiddleClass-Unilateral-Biggoted-Racist-Antieverything-Wannabee-Yuppie-Undereducated-Idiots out there be reformed? (or did I miss somebody in there?)

How about all the TreeHugging-BlueState-Prounion-AntiTrade-Liberal-Rich-NeoDemocrat-AntiJesus-DevilWorshiping-ExPatriot-FlipFlopper-DeanLover-orjustaboutwhateverstereotype you like?

Since sexual preference is a PREFERENCE... SURELY it can be changed. How about all the people of the world who prefer to burn crosses on Sunday? Can THEY be reformed?

Please site specific studies and facts. -I am out -

What a waste of discussion. (envision me spitting the last word of this sentence out like a bug inhaled accidentally while biking)Really AI... has it come to this ?

Okay Sexual Preference is a political term not a scientific term. Its called SEXUAL ORIENTATION in the scientific community. There is a huge difference. A left handed person does not prefer to use their left hand, they are oriented that way. It can be modified, which usually causes harm. This is the same as with gay people.

The reason there are not any posts to real scientific data here is that there really are none that are considered definitive one way or the other.

As to the person who said all they gay guys he knows had bad childhoods. There is one thing to remember about the gay community. The gay community is much like the deaf community in that they are VERY open with their lives and feelings in comparison to straight counterparts. 1 in 3 girls are estimated to have been abused (physically, sexually or emotionally) in america. For men that figure is estimated at 1 in five. There is no scientific evidence that shows abuse of any kind leads to homosexuality.

As for lesbians, women have much more fluid sexuality than men. I dont have time to look up the study now that shows this, I believe its on the APA's website.

Thank you.

I never intended to imply any such thing. I never mentioned abuse. But some people do have backgrounds were they might have more reason to question the roles they play in society than others.

I suppose what really needs to be questioned is this:

Even if being gay were irrefutably proven to be a choice and have no other underlying influences, do any of us have any right to suggest to a gay person that they need to be reformatted because the bible, that ultimate bastion of undeniable fact, says they're going to hell for the choice they've made?

Let's just start going Joe Kennedy on them all and giving out prefrontal labotomies. Sure, that might seem excessive nowadays, but is "reprogramming" really any different? You're objective is entirely the same, you're simply looking for a more personally comforting way to get there.

Who are we to tell someone else that who they are is unacceptable and needs to be changed? What stops that person from demanding you be reprogrammed to be more tolerant and less prejudiced? I'm sure there's plenty of people who thinks blacks are more detrimental to society than gays, so let's reprogram black people too. And democrats, they could use it. Maybe Wal-Mart shoppers next. Point being: you'll never find one single segment of society that someone won't want to get a hold of and mold to their liking. (And spare me the whole 'who are we to tell murderers and molesters they're wrong!' BS)

Has it possibly struck any of you that this would actually be an attempt at playing God? What makes us think we are better suited at making this human being "right" than Him? If we're all sinners, then we all have a path we need to take. If God puts people down the path in question, do we have any business stepping in and forcibly removing them from that path before they have figured out what they were meant to figure out?

If someone WANTS to be "treated" then perhaps a system can be developed for helping them out. Beyond that, leave them alone.







PS - I wonder if the stem cell research tune would change if it were proposed that it might be possible to remove gay genes from embryos.....

I absolutly agree. The real discussion is not about genes, but about tolerance. Should people be free to live with a gay sexual orientation, with the same rights as heterosexuals? Of course they should!

Discussing genes is just sidestepping the whole question.

Again it is the point of "who they are" versus "what they do" where things hang up. This is where the genetics comes into this discussion, to short-circuit the debate..."Well I was born this way...it is who I am." It is the equivalent of saying "I was born with blue eyes, who are you to say that having blues eyes is wrong?"


We are not. Only God can do that.


I don't know if anyone is forcing anyone to do anything. It isn't like people are being rounded up and sent to "de-gay-ification" camps or some such.


Well that's what it is from what I can tell.

Obviously we can debate the effectiveness of the systems (as has been done here...if anything in AO/PO can ever be called a debate). But no one is forcing anyone to do anything. There seems to be this idea that if someone has a belief of some kind, and they dare to actually, you know, excercise their constitutional right to express it, they are forcing it on someone else. That's just silly.

They are.

They just want to force their disfunctional lives on society so they dont feel so strange,wierd,etc. Keep it in the closet otherwise you could see the republicans enforcing some old laws still on the books.

Nope, sorry.

Not one single one of us is who we were when we were born. Your life makes you who you are. Sexual preference may or may not be genetic, but I'll bet you that most gay people don't DEFINE themselves by their sexual orinetation. They won't claim gay is who they are becaue they were born gay. What they will tell you is that they are who they are as a result of their life experiences, and being gay is simply a part of that. The only people wo define the existence of gays by their being gay is those in fierce opposition of them.

What I do is play hockey, for instance. Playing hockey is actually a large part of who I am. Sure, I could just not play it anymore, but I have a deep passion for it and the memories and lessons I have from my experiences while playing it have helped mold me into WHO I AM.

It's easy to say a behavior is a behavior and simply dimiss it's corrolation to the foundations of our personality and characteristics. My will, determination, and leadership qualities are in large part due to a decision I made as a child to play hockey. A decision may be a decision at the moment it is made, but the outcome of that decision may have a sweeping impact on who you are as a whole which isn't often considered. ( All this, of course, assuming I choose to believe people just think one day they want to be gay and want to willingly spend their lives being persecuted by those who think they are evil and in need of reprogramming. )

What I find ironic is that in this case it's okay to change people, because being gay is bad. But Saudi terrorists are evil for believing everyone should practice Wahabi Islam. Does this all of a sudden lend some validity to the terrorist cause, given that the belief and practice of Christianity, or more simply the non-belief and non-practice of Islam, is nothing more than choices made (that can be un-made) and not fundamental building blocks of human anatomy? After all, they're simply out to reprogram the rest of us due to a flawed choice we've made, no?

Well what I find silly is that the religious sect of this country can demean gays and make their lives particularly miserable by infringing upon their individual rights outside of the sexual realm (adoption, tax breaks, health care) and then claim they only oppose their "choice" to be gay vocally yet don't inhibit their lives in any way other than that.

I wish that the religious right would really meditate on WWJD. Somehow, I don't think that Jesus would do most of the things that the republicans do - can you imagine Jesus persecuting homosexuals?

no

It wasn't the "religious sect" that did these things. What you are referring to is laws that relate to things that are extended to people that are married...and there are restrictions that have been placed on who can marry who.

Give it up. As much as you want to make this into a "Oh, the big, bad, oppressive, Christian Right(tm)"...it just isn't so.

There are laws, plain and simple that apply to people who are married to one another and there are restrictions on who can marry who. The same-sex marriage discussion is just a question of where that line gets drawn.

Christian != Republican

How are Christians(tm) persecuting homosexuals? I mean there are a few extreme yutzes out there (Fred Phelps)...but this isn't "Christians" as some large, conspiratorial block of some sort. Hmmm...that's a lot like saying that "Gays do..." such and such.

No one I know is really doing/saying that.


I happen to think terrorists are evil because of what they do...indiscriminately killing (often) innocent civilians.

OK - find some argument in the USA against gay marriage that does not have a religious basis. You won't find one - hence Christians are persecuting gay people.

In particular, Christian Republicans are persecuting gay people - I haven't heard many Christian Democrats (or athiest Republicans) who are against gay marriage.

The overwhelming majority of people in states voting to restrict gay rights was not Christian?

*And no, I'm not getting into a debate with you feigning naivety over the meaning of the word "persecute." It's clear from any perspective that an overwhelmingly Christian nation is actively depriving homosexuals of certain rights. Persecuting them, in a word. And yes, you can persecute a group despite it never having those rights in question in the first place. By adding anti-gay marriage amendments to state constitutions, Christians are not only keeping marriage rights strictly heterosexual, but also strengthening those restrictions.

But Christians are the persecuted ones.

Way to gloss over what I said.

Okay...

Being against something != persecution

No...just addressing one of the ridiculous statements you made.

Yes it is. Hitler was against marriage between jews and non-jews - it is all part and parcel of the same thing. You have a piece of hate in your heart that makes you a watered down version of Hitler - just like everyone else who is anti-gay marriage.

The republican party is all about interferring in other peoples business. Poking your nose into other peoples lives, and interferring with their freedom if they do things you don't agree with. In the case of homosexuals, what you don't agree with is their entire existance, so your treatment of them amounts to persecution.

In fact, most of the country is persecuted by the religious right in some way or other - I just wish that you guys would mind your own business and stop pushing for legislation that tries to make everyone else just like you.